Advertisement

Mosaic: Designing Online Creative Communities for Sharing Works-in-Progress

  • Joy Kim
  • Maneesh Agrawala
  • Michael S. Bernstein
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Online creative communities allow creators to share their work with a large audience, maximizing opportunities to showcase their work and connect with fans and peers. However, sharing in-progress work can be technically and socially challenging in environments designed for sharing completed pieces. We propose an online creative community where sharing process, rather than showcasing outcomes, is the main method of sharing creative work. Based on this, we present Mosaic—an online community where illustrators share work-in-progress snapshots showing how an artwork was completed from start to finish. In an online deployment and observational study, artists used Mosaic as a vehicle for reflecting on how they can improve their own creative process, developed a social norm of detailed feedback, and became less apprehensive of sharing early versions of artwork. Through Mosaic, we argue that communities oriented around sharing creative process can create a collaborative environment that is beneficial for creative growth.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our colleagues that helped shape this research with their valuable feedback. We also thank all the artists who participated in this study for their time and expertise. This material is based upon work supported by the NSF GRFP under Grant No. DGE-114747 and by the Hasso Plattner Institute Design Thinking Research Program.

References

  1. 99designs.
    99designs. (2016). http://99designs.com.
  2. Behance. (2016). https://behance.net.
  3. Deviantart. (2016). http://deviantart.com.
  4. The future of work in progress (wips) - behance helpcenter. (2016). https://web.archive.org/web/20160421001929/https://help.behance.net/hc/en-us/articles/218288227-The-future-of-Work-in-Progress-WIPs-. Accessed: 21-04-2016.
  5. Pinterest. (2016). http://pinterest.com.
  6. /r/artcrit. (2016). http://reddit.com/r/artcrit.
  7. /r/destructivereaders. (2016). http://reddit.com/r/destructivereaders.
  8. Threadless. (2016). http://threadless.com.
  9. Block, J. H., Airasian, P. W., Bloom, B. S., & Carroll, J. B. (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  10. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, J., Aragon, C., Davis, K., Evans, S., Evans, A., & Randall, D. (2016). Thousands of positive reviews: Distributed mentoring in online fan communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’16 (pp. 691–704). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2818048.2819934.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), 081004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dontcheva, M., Morris, R. R., Brandt, J. R., & Gerber, E. M. (2014). Combining crowdsourcing and learning to improve engagement and performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’14 (pp. 3379–3388). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557217.Google Scholar
  15. Dow, S. P., Glassco, A., Kass, J., Schwarz, M., Schwartz, D. L., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(4), 1–24 (Article 18).Google Scholar
  16. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, T., & Kellogg, W. A. (2000). Social translucence: An approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), 59–83. doi:10.1145/344949.345004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ericsson, K., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feldman, E. B. (1971). Varieties of visual experience: Art as image and idea. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Guo, P. J. (2015). Codeopticon: Real-time, one-to-many human tutoring for computer programming. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, UIST ’15 (pp. 599–608). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2807442.2807469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herring, S. R., Chang, C. C., Krantzler, J., & Bailey, B. P. (2009). Getting inspired!: Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09 (pp. 87–96). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518717.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, B. M., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2013). The cost of collaboration for code and art: Evidence from a remixing community. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’13 (pp. 1035–1046). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441893.Google Scholar
  23. Hodges, S., Williams, L., Berry, E., Izadi, S., Srinivasan, J., Butler, A., Smyth, G., Kapur, N., & Wood, K. (2006). Sensecam: A retrospective memory aid. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp’06 (pp. 177–193). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim, J., Cheng, J., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014). Ensemble: Exploring complementary strengths of leaders and crowds in creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’14 (pp. 745–755). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531638.Google Scholar
  26. Kraut, R. E., Resnick, P., Kiesler, S., Burke, M., Chen, Y., Kittur, N., Konstan, J., Ren, Y., & Riedl, J. (2012). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kulkarni, C., Dow, S. P., & Klemmer, S. R. (2014). Early and repeated exposure to examples improves creative work. In Design thinking research (pp. 49–62). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the expert amateur: Diy projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, NordiCHI ’10 (pp. 295–304). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, Y. J., Zitnick, C. L., & Cohen, M. F. (2011). Shadowdraw: Real-time user guidance for freehand drawing. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2011 Papers, SIGGRAPH ’11 (pp. 27:1–27:10). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1964921.1964922.Google Scholar
  30. Luther, K., Caine, K., Ziegler, K., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Why it works (when it works): Success factors in online creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP ’10 (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1880071.1880073.Google Scholar
  31. Luther, K., Fiesler, C., & Bruckman, A. (2013). Redistributing leadership in online creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’13 (pp. 1007–1022). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441891.Google Scholar
  32. Luther, K., Tolentino, J. L., Wu, W., Pavel, A., Bailey, B. P., Agrawala, M., Hartmann, B., & Dow, S. P. (2015). Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’15 (pp. 473–485). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675283.Google Scholar
  33. Marlow, J., & Dabbish, L. (2014). From rookie to all-star: Professional development in a graphic design social networking site. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’14 (pp. 922–933). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531651.Google Scholar
  34. Marwick, A. E., et al. (2011). I tweet honestly, i tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matejka, J., Li, W., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2009). Communitycommands: Command recommendations for software applications. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’09 (pp. 193–202). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1622176.1622214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nov, O., Naaman, M., & Ye, C. (2009). Motivational, structural and tenure factors that impact online community photo sharing. In Proceedings of the Third International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google Scholar
  37. Petrelli, D., van den Hoven, E., & Whittaker, S. (2009). Making history: Intentional capture of future memories. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09 (pp. 1723–1732). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518966.Google Scholar
  38. Retelny, D., Robaszkiewicz, S., To, A., Lasecki, W.S., Patel, J., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., Valentine, M., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014). Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’14 (pp. 75–85). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2642918.2647409.Google Scholar
  39. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Settles, B., & Dow, S. (2013). Let’s get together: The formation and success of online creative collaborations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13 (pp. 2009–2018). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466266.Google Scholar
  41. Siangliulue, P., Arnold, K. C., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2015a). Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’15 (pp. 937–945). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675239.Google Scholar
  42. Siangliulue, P., Chan, J., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2015b). Providing timely examples improves the quantity and quality of generated ideas. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, C&C ’15 (pp. 83–92). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2757226.2757230.Google Scholar
  43. Teo, H. J., & Johri, A. (2014). Fast, functional, and fitting: Expert response dynamics and response quality in an online newcomer help forum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’14 (pp. 332–341). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531731.Google Scholar
  44. Thiry, E., Lindley, S., Banks, R., & Regan, T. (2013). Authoring personal histories: Exploring the timeline as a framework for meaning making. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’13 (pp. 1619–1628). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466215.Google Scholar
  45. Torrey, C., McDonald, D. W., Schilit, B. N., & Bly, S. (2007). How-to pages: Informal systems of expertise sharing. In Proceedings of the 2007 Tenth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 391–410). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should i share? examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
  47. Xu, A., Huang, S. W., & Bailey, B. (2014) Voyant: Generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’14 (pp. 1433–1444). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2531602.2531604.Google Scholar
  48. Xu, A., Rao, H., Dow, S. P., & Bailey, B. P. (2015). A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW ’15 (pp. 1637–1648). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675140.Google Scholar
  49. Yu, L., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Cooks or cobblers?: Crowd creativity through combination. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11 (pp. 1393–1402). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joy Kim
    • 1
  • Maneesh Agrawala
    • 1
  • Michael S. Bernstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations